Military AviationA forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

All gone very quiet on the BBC TV, including their text world news and even the World Service, not a mention of N.K. for 2 days now, one wonders if there has been a D notice or whatever it is called these days issued !

All gone very quiet on the BBC TV, including their text world news and even the World Service, not a mention of N.K. for 2 days now, one wonders if there has been a D notice or whatever it is called these days issued !

Mebbe there's been no news to report.

Mebbe the dude with the dodgy hairdo hasn't threatened another one with WMD today?

I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could

Join Date: Dec 2002

Location: Lincolnshire

Age: 74

Posts: 15,010

Nothing like a media feeding frenzy. Looks as if once the story went upstairs from the relatively low press office they were inhibited from issuing a correction lest it conflicted with higher authority statements.

the worry is that they don't need ICBMs to get to us - they have a lot of submarines - they have Soviet era technology that includes probably nuclear tipped torpedoes that can be launched at quite a distance into, say, a harbour and they acquired some old Soviet subs for "scrapping" some time back that had launch tubes in the fin (conning tower) - bit of chopping and blending and they have something that can launch the short range missiles that they have already developed and proven.. BUT where did they get their nuclear material from in the first place?

Just a possibility - the Soviets had them decades ago and the North Koreans got some of their sub know how from them. A possibility to consider. One on one their subs may be obsolete but they have a significant number of them - how many can you track?

the worry is that they don't need ICBMs to get to us - they have a lot of submarines - they have Soviet era technology that includes probably nuclear tipped torpedoes .......

Having Soviet era submarines and having Soviet era nuclear torpedoes are two very very different things. USN A-4s had a nuclear delivery capability. That does not mean that that delivery capability was included in A-4s sold to other nations, much much less the nukes themselves. This seems highly unlikely. Especially considering that DPRK has spent billions on developing nuclear weapons. They would not have needed to go to all that effort and expense if the Soviets had sold them nukes.

Having Soviet era submarines and having Soviet era nuclear torpedoes are two very very different things. USN A-4s had a nuclear delivery capability. That does not mean that that delivery capability was included in A-4s sold to other nations, much much less the nukes themselves. This seems highly unlikely. Especially considering that DPRK has spent billions on developing nuclear weapons. They would not have needed to go to all that effort and expense if the Soviets had sold them nukes.

Last bit first as this is a valid point - how/where from did/do they get the basic raw material for their nuclear weapons? - they obviously have some - I did not mean to imply that the Soviets had supplied the finished product nor the basic material.

Regarding delivery systems: if you can put such a warhead on a missile, then it should be easy to fit one in a torpedo (such Soviet era torpedoes had a yield of about 10kilotons, I think a worry for aircraft carriers, I suggest, and enough to consider in the defence of ports); some of the old subs sold/given to NK in the past had launch tubes that could have been cannibalised or copied into some of their current subs so a short range missile could be used effectively - OK surfacing to launch would be suicidal for the crew but would that deter them and what is the difference between that and what was expected of our bomber crews back in the day (surely one way trips)?; I just made the point that we should not just focus on the threat from ballistic missiles when they may have an easier, more reliable way of sending us a message - the numbers that they have could tie up the surveillance capabilities while one slips through. I do not mean to be alarmist but I hope that this scenario is being considered by our military.